Case Law Details
Shivpad Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently ruled in favor of Shivpad Engineers Pvt Ltd in a case concerning the rejection of their GST appeal due to technical issues with document submission. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that only a hard copy was submitted and the required soft copy was not uploaded due to portal glitches. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed within the allowed timeframe and that the failure to upload the documents was due to circumstances beyond their control. They requested an opportunity to resubmit the necessary documentation.
In response, the government maintained that the appeal was rejected for the non-filing of the soft copy and highlighted a delay of approximately six weeks in filing the appeal, which they contended was beyond the statutory limits. However, the court found the rejection to be unjust, emphasizing the genuine nature of the technical difficulties faced by the petitioner. The judgment underscored the principle that parties should not be penalized for procedural failures resulting from issues outside their control. As a result, the court set aside the previous order and directed Shivpad Engineers to file their appeal both manually and electronically within 30 days, allowing the appellate authority to accept the appeal without strict adherence to the limitation period, provided the submission was otherwise complete.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 18.07.2024, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was rejected on the ground that only a hard copy was submitted and the soft copy was not uploaded. He further submits that the petitioner has all the necessary documents and the appeal was indeed filed before the appellate authority. Due to technical glitches, the petitioner was unable to upload the soft copy. The assessment order was completed on 08.03.2023, and the appeal was manually filed on 07.07.2023. Although the petitioner attempted to upload the soft copy, they were unsuccessful due to portal issues, leading to the rejection of the appeal. He submits that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner can upload the required documents.
3 Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the appeal was rejected due to the non-filing of the soft copy. He further submits that there was a delay of 11/2 months in filing the appeal, which is beyond the statutory limit, and the appellate authority lacks the power to condone such delay under the law.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the appeal was rejected solely on the ground that the soft copy was not uploaded due to technical problems. This Court acknowledges that the delay in filing the appeal was genuine, as it was caused by these issues during the upload process. In such circumstances, an appeal should not be rejected without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the rejection arises from technical issues beyond their control. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the petitioner an additional opportunity to present their case.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to file the appeal, both manually and by uploading the soft copy, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellate authority is directed to take the appeal on record without insisting on the period of limitation, provided the appeal is otherwise in order.
7. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
